First Opinion serves as STAT’s platform for insightful, engaging, and thought-provoking articles that delve into the broader life sciences landscape. Contributions come from individuals deeply embedded in the biotech industry, healthcare professionals, researchers, and others passionate about these vital topics.
To foster thorough and constructive dialogue regarding the issues brought up in First Opinion essays, STAT features selected Letters to the Editor in response to these pieces. You can share your thoughts by submitting a Letter to the Editor here or find the submission form at the conclusion of any First Opinion article.
The Story
“The DEA’s 2025 quotas for opioids will leave seriously ill patients in pain,” by Rebecca Rodin
The Response
As someone with chronic pain due to degenerative disc disease and polyarteritis nodosa, I have endured the distress of being denied essential pain medication. Following the retirement of my primary care physician during the pandemic, I spent two arduous years appealing to numerous medical “professionals” before finally finding a doctor willing to prescribe the opioid that grants me a semblance of a quality life. We can and must do better. For those of you feeling isolated and in pain, I empathize with your struggle. I encourage you to transform your pain into righteous indignation, allowing it to fuel your purpose and combat the depression that often accompanies chronic conditions. Contact your elected representatives outside of office hours to express your concerns passionately about this serious social and medical injustice.
— Gregory Apelian
The Response
As a 100% disabled veteran who has relied on opioid therapy from the VA for over a dozen years due to intractable pain, the idea that my quality of life could be jeopardized by an arbitrary quota set by a DEA bureaucrat is simply unacceptable. I will be forwarding this essay to my congressional representative and senator, urging them to demand accountability from the DEA regarding this decision.
— Jesse Brown
The Story
“The recommended women’s health screening that rarely happens,” by Milena M. Weinstein and Samantha J. Pulliam
The Response
Thanks to Dr. Weinstein and Dr. Pulliam for highlighting a widespread women’s health issue that is often downplayed by many male urologists as merely a nuisance rather than a significant factor in increased morbidity. I lost my mother in August; while many might label it as “old age,” the truth is that urinary incontinence marked the onset of her decline. Initially ashamed and hesitant to accept social invitations due to her need for privacy in managing bulky adult diapers, she later shut herself away from attending family gatherings. Despite appointments with at least five male urologists over two years, my mother ended up homebound. I urge you to continue this crucial work so that no one else has to face their first holiday season without their loved one.
— Debra Rothbard
The Story
“The ‘skin in the game’ approach to health care spending has failed,” by Merrill Goozner
The Response
At last, a logical and insightful perspective on American healthcare. Thank you for shedding light on this critical issue.
— Sharon Johnson
The Story
“How ADHD wired me for scientific discovery,” by Jeff Karp
The Response
While I can appreciate the author’s perspective on ADHD, as a fellow academic living with the condition, I find it concerning to frame ADHD as a “superpower.” The reality of life with ADHD is a challenge for countless individuals worldwide, making it tough to fit into a neurotypical world. Jeff may be an exceptional individual who has flourished despite his struggles, but he might not fully grasp the average experience of those who face the day-to-day challenges of ADHD.
— Matheus Zytkuewisz
